Draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026 MPs voted to approve regulations extending the government's powers under the Energy Prices Act 2022 for a further period, allowing ministers to continue measures aimed at reducing the burden of energy policy costs on household bills, including shifting some renewables obligation funding away from direct consumer charges. Position: Support extending the government's legal powers to manage and reduce energy costs for households and businesses, including flexibility over how renewable energy policy costs are funded Energyenergy-policyleftwith govt | Yes | 22 Apr 2026 |
Pensions Schemes Bill: Govt motion relating to Lords Reason 88D Vote on a government motion relating to Lords Amendment 88D to the Pension Schemes Bill, in which the Commons responded to the Lords' reasoning for their amendment. This is part of parliamentary 'ping-pong' between the two Houses over the content of the Pension Schemes Bill. Position: Support the Lords' position on amendment 88D, opposing the government's response to the upper chamber PensionsPensions Policycentreagainst govt | No | 22 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 26 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to say what Lords Amendment 26 specifically proposed, but MPs voted on whether to override the Lords and remove that change from the Bill. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 26, backing the change the upper chamber made to the devolution or community empowerment provisions Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 36 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to specify what Lords Amendment 36 proposed, but voting Aye meant siding with the government in overturning that Lords change. Position: Back the House of Lords' amendment and push back against the government's approach to devolution or community empowerment provisions in the Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 37 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to specify what Lords Amendment 37 proposed, but the government sought to remove it, and a majority of MPs backed the government's position. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 37, backing the change the House of Lords had made to the Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 4 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 4 is unknown, but the government sought to overturn it, meaning the Lords' modification to this devolution legislation will not stand if the Aye side prevails. Position: Back the Lords' amendment and oppose the government overriding the upper chamber's change to this devolution legislation Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 13 The government asked MPs to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts it is not possible to say exactly what Lords Amendment 13 proposed, but MPs were deciding whether to override the Lords and restore the government's original text on this aspect of English devolution. Position: Defend the Lords' amendment and oppose the government overriding the upper chamber's change to the bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 41 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific content of Lords Amendment 41 is unknown, but voting Aye meant siding with the Labour government in overturning the Lords' change. Position: Support retaining the Lords Amendment 41, opposing the government's attempt to remove or override it Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 98 The Commons voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of Lords Amendment 98 is unknown, but voting Aye meant siding with the government in overturning what the Lords had added or changed. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 98, backing the change the House of Lords made to the Bill Devolution and Local PowersLocal Governmentcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill: Government motion to disagree to Lords Amendment 2 The government asked MPs to overturn a change made by the House of Lords to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of Lords Amendment 2 is unknown, but MPs voted on whether to reject the Lords' modification and restore the government's original text. Position: Support retaining the Lords' amendment, opposing the government's attempt to remove it Devolution and Local PowersLocal Government Reformcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 21 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E The Commons voted on a motion relating to Lords Amendments 2D and 2E to the Crime and Policing Bill. Without debate excerpts, the precise content of these Lords amendments is unknown, but this vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected changes the House of Lords had made to the Bill. Position: Oppose the government's position, preferring to retain the Lords' amendments as passed in the upper chamber Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating Lords Reasons 359B and 439B Vote on a procedural motion in the Crime and Policing Bill concerning the government's response to two specific Lords amendments (359B and 439B). Without debate excerpts, the exact substance of those Lords amendments is unknown, but the Commons was deciding whether to accept or reject changes the House of Lords had made to the bill. Position: Oppose the government's handling of these Lords amendments, likely preferring to accept the Lords' original changes to the bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 11B A procedural vote during the ping-pong stage of the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered its response to a Lords amendment (Lords Reason 11B). Without debate excerpts it is not possible to determine the specific policy content, but the vote determined whether the Commons accepted or rejected the Lords' position on a provision within the Bill. Position: Back the Lords' position on this amendment, opposing the government's preferred approach to the relevant provision in the Crime and Policing Bill Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: Motion relating to Lords Reason 342B Vote on a procedural motion relating to a Lords amendment (342B) to the Crime and Policing Bill, where the Commons considered the Lords' reasoning for a change to the bill. Without debate excerpts, the specific policy substance cannot be determined, but this reflects a disagreement between the Commons and Lords over a provision in the bill. Position: Support the Lords' position or reasoning on amendment 342B, opposing the Commons majority view Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice ReformPolice Accountabilitycross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 20 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 26 The Lords had amended the Pension Schemes Bill to protect smaller, well-run pension schemes from being forced to merge into larger ones, arguing that good performance matters more than sheer size. This vote was on whether to reject that Lords amendment, meaning the government wanted to keep the original 'scale requirement' without exemptions for smaller schemes. Position: Support the Lords amendment, protecting well-performing smaller pension schemes from forced mergers and preserving competition and innovation in the pensions sector PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 43 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill — a Bill aimed at improving returns for pension savers. The government (Labour) wanted to overturn Lords Amendment 43, restoring its preferred version of the legislation. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 43, backing the change the House of Lords made to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill that would have blocked ministers from being able to direct how pension funds invest savers' money. The Lords had passed the amendment to remove or limit this 'mandation power', which critics called an unacceptable government power grab over people's private savings. Position: Back the Lords amendment, opposing giving ministers the power to direct how private pension funds invest savers' money PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 78 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill. The Lords had added Amendment 78, which the government opposed; voting Aye supported overturning the Lords' change, while voting No meant keeping it in the Bill. Position: Support retaining Lords Amendment 78, backing the change the House of Lords inserted into the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementproceduralagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 15 The Lords had amended the Pension Schemes Bill to remove or restrict a government power to direct how pension funds must invest ('mandation power'). The Commons voted on whether to reject that Lords amendment and reinstate the government's original approach, which critics called an unjustified government 'power grab' over pension investments. Position: Support the Lords amendment, opposing the government's power to mandate where pension funds invest, arguing it is wrong in principle and threatens pensioners' interests PensionsPensions and Retirementrightagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Pension Schemes Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 35 MPs voted on whether to reject a change made by the House of Lords to the Pension Schemes Bill — a Bill aimed at improving pension returns for savers through consolidation and better asset management. The government wanted to remove Lords Amendment 35, while the Lords had sought to modify the Bill in some way not fully detailed in the available debate excerpts. Position: Support retaining the Lords' Amendment 35, backing the change the upper chamber made to the Pension Schemes Bill PensionsPensions and Retirementcentreagainst govt | No | 15 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 342 The government rejected a Lords amendment that would have required specific evidence to be presented to a court when applying for a youth diversion order (used in terrorism and serious harm cases), arguing it would create unhelpful rigidity. Instead, the government proposed its own alternative amendment requiring statutory guidance to set out what evidence courts should consider. Position: Support the Lords' position that specific evidence requirements should be enshrined in statute to ensure courts only impose youth diversion orders where truly necessary and proportionate Crime and PolicingPolicingcentreagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The government asked MPs to reject a Lords amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill (the largest criminal justice bill in a generation), instead offering its own alternative measures. The bill covers knife crime, violence against women and girls, antisocial behaviour, and online harms including AI-generated intimate images. Position: Support retaining the Lords amendment as passed, disagreeing with the government's proposed substitution Crime and PolicingCriminal Justice SystemPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 357 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have removed a legal safeguard protecting legitimate political and historical discussion about terrorism from prosecution. The Lords wanted to make it easier to prosecute glorification of terrorist acts by proscribed organisations, but the government argued this risked criminalising genuine political and social debate. Position: Support the Lords amendment, arguing that glorifying acts of terrorism by proscribed organisations should not benefit from the historical safeguard, and that the current law is too permissive Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 333 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (no. 333, tabled by Baroness Buscombe) to the Crime and Policing Bill, which the government opposed. Critics argued the Lords change represented a major shift in the relationship between the state and individuals and had not received adequate parliamentary scrutiny. Position: Oppose removing Lords Amendment 333, arguing it contained important protections and deserved proper parliamentary consideration Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 359 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have proscribed Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation. The Conservative opposition argued the IRGC poses a direct threat to people in the UK and that proscription was overdue, while the government maintained it preferred existing measures such as the foreign influence registration scheme. Position: Support the Lords amendment to proscribe the IRGC as a terrorist organisation, arguing it poses a direct and serious threat to people in the UK and that current measures are insufficient Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 11 MPs voted on whether to reject Lords Amendment 11 to the Crime and Policing Bill. The Government moved to disagree with this Lords change, meaning the Commons would override what the unelected House of Lords had added to the Bill. Position: Support keeping Lords Amendment 11, backing the Lords' addition to the Crime and Policing Bill against the Government's wishes Crime and PolicingPolicingproceduralagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 6 MPs voted on whether to reject a Lords amendment (Amendment 6) to the Crime and Policing Bill that would have strengthened powers to tackle fly-tipping. The government opposed the Lords change, meaning communities — particularly rural ones — would not get the enhanced enforcement tools the Lords had proposed. Position: Support the Lords' amendment to introduce tougher measures against fly-tipping, arguing rural communities and landowners need stronger legal protections and enforcement powers Crime and PolicingPolicingcross-cuttingagainst govt | No | 14 Apr 2026 |
Crime and Policing Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 334 The Commons voted to reject a Lords amendment that would have completely abolished non-crime hate incidents (NCHIs). The government argued the Lords amendment was unnecessary because it had already moved to scrap the existing NCHI code of practice and accepted a College of Policing review recommending a tougher new national standard instead. Position: Support the government's approach of replacing the existing NCHI code of practice with a stricter national standard, rather than an outright statutory abolition of NCHIs Crime and PolicingPolicingcentrewith govt | Yes | 14 Apr 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 1 The government voted to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights, including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it already plans to deliver free sentencing remarks for victims and wants to ensure any further changes are workable before committing to them. Position: Support the Lords amendment, backing stronger victims' rights now including wider access to free court transcripts and enhanced ability to challenge unduly lenient sentences Crime & Policingcentreagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
Victims and Courts Bill: motion to disagree with Lords Amendment 2 The government moved to reject a Lords amendment to the Victims and Courts Bill that would have expanded victims' rights — including broader access to free court transcripts and stronger rights to challenge unduly lenient sentences. The government argued it supports these goals in principle but wants to implement them differently, while opposition parties said the Lords amendments were sensible and should be kept. Position: Oppose removing the Lords amendment, arguing it should be kept to guarantee victims stronger rights to free court transcripts and to challenge unduly lenient sentences now, rather than relying on future government promises Crime & Policingproceduralagainst govt | No | 25 Mar 2026 |
